When I had posted such a report about EF, you would point out that it states "could cost" and that it'should excluding tax.
But I take it at least as a positive hint in what direction it goes, although we will see real figures only after treatment next order and Senat report.

When I had posted such a report about EF, you would point out that it statea "could cost" and that it excluding tax.
But I take it at least as a positive hint in what direction it goes, although we will see real figures only after treatment next order and Senat report.

Click to expand...

Yes if you want, I don't care because DGA decision are taken considering this price. It would be different perhaps for India, except if SAFRAN agree to sign a contract at this price.

It is true that from the aerodynamic point of view I have only an ordinary level, one that can be acquired at Sup'Aero, ie the best level in the world, for a school. But then I did not use this aspect of my curriculum during my professional career. No, the main error of @vstol jockey is to underestimate the aerodynamic capabilities of Dassault. For example, he thinks that the roll instability is a defect whereas coupled to the FCS it is a quality that increases the maneuverability of the aircraft.

This command led the industrialist to develop a new standard of armaments allowing a very significant reduction of its cost with identical performances" ,explained on January 5 in a press release the DGA without giving more details. An AASM bomb could be worth around 80,000 euros excluding tax, against 120,000 euros currently.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

'Could be'. I.e. not currently. And doesn't say which version it's talking about, could be GPS only version. A single mode Brimstone is £35,000-45,000 cheaper than regular.

DMB last used in Syria cost £100k. Single mode is around Hellfire price.

It is true that from the aerodynamic point of view I have only an ordinary level, one that can be acquired at Sup'Aero, ie the best level in the world, for a school. But then I did not use this aspect of my curriculum during my professional career. No, the main error of @vstol jockey is to underestimate the aerodynamic capabilities of Dassault. For example, he thinks that the roll instability is a defect whereas coupled to the FCS it is a quality that increases the maneuverability of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

Not at all sir. The Rafale has been given this instability to give it much higher agility and I agree with you that it has one of the finest FBW systems in the world. I was making the point that there is cost associated with whatever you do. While this instability has given Rafale such fantastic agility, it has created a problem of asymmetric loads. This is not much of a problem for shore based fighter as they can overcome this problem by increasing their landing speed but it becomes a problem for deck based fighters. I have not contradicted you instead supported your POV.

It is true that from the aerodynamic point of view I have only an ordinary level, one that can be acquired at Sup'Aero, ie the best level in the world, for a school. But then I did not use this aspect of my curriculum during my professional career. No, the main error of @vstol jockey is to underestimate the aerodynamic capabilities of Dassault. For example, he thinks that the roll instability is a defect whereas coupled to the FCS it is a quality that increases the maneuverability of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

But as vstol says it also reduces its ability to operate asymmetric loads and make carrier landings with large loads.

Not at all sir. The Rafale has been given this instability to give it much higher agility and I agree with you that it has one of the finest FBW systems in the world. I was making the point that there is cost associated with whatever you do. While this instability has given Rafale such fantastic agility, it has created a problem of asymmetric loads. This is not much of a problem for shore based fighter as they can overcome this problem by increasing their landing speed but it becomes a problem for deck based fighters. I have not contradicted you instead supported your POV.

Click to expand...

It was me who pointed out to you this problem of asymmetric load with the landing on carrier. But we must not exaggerate it either. The French navy prefers to be cautious as long as we are not in a high intensity conflict, it is mainly because the performance of the Rafale is sufficient despite this caution.
In fact the Rafale is able to land on an aircraft carrier with asymmetric loads, but from a safety point of view it should not be done too often.

Not at all sir. The Rafale has been given this instability to give it much higher agility and I agree with you that it has one of the finest FBW systems in the world. I was making the point that there is cost associated with whatever you do. While this instability has given Rafale such fantastic agility, it has created a problem of asymmetric loads. This is not much of a problem for shore based fighter as they can overcome this problem by increasing their landing speed but it becomes a problem for deck based fighters. I have not contradicted you instead supported your POV.

Click to expand...

Agility, manoeuvrability is a turd they keep polishing when you don't have stealth.

For the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), these developments are eagerly awaited in order to allow Berlin to fulfill its commitment to contribute to the NATO Rapid Reaction Force (NRF) in 2018 with its Eurofighter Typhoon

However, according to a report quoted by Reuters, the German General Staff is afraid of not being able to meet this deadline, as the air-ground capabilities of the Eurofighter Typhoon have not yet been validated.

Click to expand...

Here again, according to the document, the Luftwaffe has to worry because the units of Unit 1 would have "exhausted" their potential.

Click to expand...

notably the slippage of costs related to maintaining operational conditions and operating the aircraft (€ 60 billion instead of € 30 for the entire period Aircraft life)

Financial Perspective: Now that is where the catch lies. There are hundreds and thousands of parts in a plane with the highest orders of complexity. The fact that only 3/4 countries make fighter jet engines, shows something about the actual complexity. Now there are three main components to the cost, cost of units(variable cost), cost of maintenance (Variable Cost+Fixed cost) and cost of R&D(Fixed cost) that you did to develop the plane and all of its components. Now all these costs are to be extracted across no. of units produced. Obviously this also takes into account of labor costs and additional costs of sophistication. Lastly, not to forget the profit, after all war/killing is as much of a business as selling coffee by starbucks. And this is the an area where Rafale takes a beating. US with very very large domestic consumption and large clientele of numerous satellite states (middle east, pacific, Europe etc) and with a very long history of aircraft development is able to bring the costs components to a lower amount while maintaining same or even higher profits. Then another catch to the story was the cost of Misc items that was played by Dassault to appear as L1 provider. To further complicate matters the Rupee depreciated against Euro since 2010(or 2007) when the results were announced (when the competition started). So the costs of the entire package that India was envisaging including ToT, maintenance and spares would have gone in close to 30 Bn. Mind you this is close to 2/3rd of India’s defense budget. Even then tying up such amounts for only one type of plane is not the best decision financially and that’s why the numbers were cut. The G2G deal was further announced to eliminate any chances of kickbacks. I do hear rumors that congress did get kickbacks but obviously I can’t prove anything but considering their the history of UPA 2 it was not impossible either. There is a great deal of opportunity for bribes, kick back and off sets in a deal that too 10 years to complete and neither Dassault or India is any stranger to bribery or corruption.